Posted: 29 Feb 2008
Agreeing with Mathieson and Gross' observations in "Review for Error", this comment explores the avowed focus on process in appellate review and questions the accuracy of the review-for procedural-errors model. After proposing addtional explanations for the disjuncture between the theory of appellate review and the practical influence of substantive concerns, the comment suggests further avenues of research, both empirical and psychological.
Keywords: appellate review, procedural error, neutral principles, review, appeal, error, trial, finality, judges, advocacy, fiction.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Orenstein, Aviva, What We Say We Do on Review, What We Actually Do on Review, Why they are so Dissimilar, and How We Manage Not to Notice. Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 2, pp. 269-274, 2003. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=805062